Constitutional Reform 1990 to 2001

Britain's historic record on
constitutional reform has not been good. Throughout the C20th in Britain,
constitutional reform was patchy at best and delayed by the 'Establishment' as
any changes brought in had to undermine the position held by the
'Establishment'. Historians argue that the last great pieces of constitutional
reform were the 1911 Parliament Act which went some way to decreasing the power
of the House of Lords and the 1918
Representation of the People Act which nearly trebled the electorate and allowed
women over the age of 30 the right to vote. With some minor changes, there has
been no major constitutional reform in 80 years.

Despite its undoubted achievements in other areas, the
last Conservative government 1992-1997 ignored calls for constitutional reform
and put forward no coherent suggestions of its own. It can be seen from the Tory
1992 manifesto that they were clearly against devolution, though had considered
the need for parliamentary reform. Extracts taken from their manifesto show
their views on such issues:

‘We will propose appropriate Parliamentary reforms to
ensure that the House of Commons conducts its business more efficiently and
effectively, taking into account the benefits of modern technology, the
increasing constituency demands upon Members of Parliament and the need to
attract more women to stand for election."

Nationalist plans for independence are a recipe for
weakness and isolation. The costly Labour and Liberal devolution proposals for
Scotland and Wales do not intend to bring about separation, but run that risk.
They could feed, but not resolve, grievances that arise in different parts of
Britain. The plans for devolution put forward by the other parties would have a
grave impact not just on Scotland and Wales, but also on England. They propose
new and costly regional assemblies in England, for which there is no demand. We
will oppose all such unnecessary layers of government. The Union has brought us
strength both economically and politically. Our constitution is flexible, fair
and tolerant. We will fight to preserve the Union, a promise which only the
Conservatives can give at this election.’

In the Tory Party’s 1997 manifesto such devolution plans
for Scotland and Wales are still strongly opposed. Plans to resist moves to a
European federal state, to safeguard national interests by staying out of the
single European currency and to adopt a wait-and-see approach are also
expressed.

In a speech to the Labour Party Conference on 4th
October 1994, Tony Blair stated that the party’s programme of constitutional
reform was ‘the biggest programme of change to democracy ever proposed’. In
keeping with this claim, the new government introduced 12 constitutional bills
in the first parliamentary session after its election victory in 1997, which in itself was an
extraordinary achievement. New Labour’s programme of constitutional reforms
developed during the 1990’s and formed a central part of the 1997 manifesto
commitments. There were four main themes:

1.The modernisation of political institutions - the main
candidates have been both Houses of Parliament, the civil service and local
government.

2. Greater democratisation of the political system - in
particular, this has been directed at increased popular participation in
institutions and the decision-making process. The acceptance of the use of
referendums and other forms of direct democracy are the principal initiatives,
but there has also been some movement towards electoral reform and a number of
other, less heralded, proposals.

3. The decentralisation of powers from Westminster and
Whitehall - naturally devolution was at the forefront of this process, but
there has also been talk of greater powers for local government and even the
introduction of regional government in England.

4. Improving and safeguarding individual and minority
rights - the flagship for this has been the Human Rights Act, which came into
force on 2nd October 2000.

Constitutional reforms that
have been introduced

1992-97

The ratifying of the Maastricht Treaty raised questions
about Britain’s sovereignty.What many saw as an erosion of civil liberties
suggested the advantages of a Bill of Rights.The centralisation of power (the reduction of the
powers of local government, for example) and the increasing use of
un-elected quangos led to calls for greater democracy and accountability.The uncovering of miscarriages of justice led to calls
for judicial reform.Corruption in the House of Commons and criticisms of
its unrepresentative make-up led to calls for the modernisation of
parliamentary procedures.